Re: this message board

More | Report Post

On 6/27/03, pat wrote:
> If I am not mistaken (and I am not) this board is supposed
> to be on Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS), yet very
> little of what is posted here has anything to do with MCS.
> We have people insulting others, mocking sufferers or
> doctors, people ignoring any data on MCS, and so forth.
>
> Why is this allowed to continue? Given the current state of
> such nonsense, what makes this message board any different
> from all the other intellectually absent message boards?
>
> Given the supposed limitation of keeping discussions to
> MCS---as implicated by this particular message board’s
> title("MCS Chatboard")---shouldn't posts actually be about
MCS?
>
> ~ Pat

Simply Stated:

We read your post between people that suffer and Mary
through out the year. I will go back to the 03/07/03 to
your post of a site to read. Will reference back to the
Post that Frank Fuzzell had asking Mr. Connell's opinion.
Frank has knowledge of the Florida water quality problem.
Dr. Shoemaker was asked to investigate. Current litigation
has transcribed within the past year. Dupont was a defense
in the case. As annoying it may be to you Pat, and your
interpretation of the MCS chat board. People are gleaming
as much information as the possible can out of this board.
The last post that I remember you posting Pat was between
Mary and yourself of how a MCS patient had no knowlege of
what she is talking about.

Re: question for mr connell
Posted by Frank Fuzzell on 3/14/03

Mr. Connell:

Data on changes in genera prevalence for different locales?
There should be plenty, at least regarding some microbial
poulations. Lakes in central Florida have changed, there has
been a shift in algal populations to dominance by
cyanobacteria
(90% now), well documented by various entities including UF,
FDEP, and the state's Harmful Algal Bloom Task Force. These
are the Lake Apoka and Lake Harris chains which include Lake
Griffin. Apopka and Griffin, are two of Florida's most
contaminated lakes.

The promoted or generally accepted explanation is nutrient
based: Phosphorous contamination in the water resulting from
years of farming operations adjacent to these lakes, and
direct
discharges into the lakes. However, it seems unlikely that
nutrients alone would account for the drastic shift in
cyanobacteria, rather, P is simply a food source. This is a
major problem in this area and over $200,000,000.00 has been
spent on restoration efforts designed to remove phosphorous
from the water (marsh flow ways), so this has not been taken
lightly.

It also seems unlikey algae would be the only population
tHAT
changed. During the same time period that the first blooms
were occured, a new strain of fusarium oxysporum began
affecting agricultural crops in Florida. FDACS, referencing
the systemic fusarium infections in plants, referred to this
as
a "relatively newly encountered pathogen" in Florida.
Similarly, UF researchers noted cyanobacteria in greenhouse
operations, as new during this same time period.

Research also indicates a correlation, such that pseudomonas
aeruginosa occurs with greater frequency in alligator clutch
eggs along these contaminated lakes with adjacent farms,
than
in lakes which are not near agricultural lands.
Additionally,
shifts in microbial populations (DRB including pseudomonas
a.)
have been reported in agricultural land, with chemical
application suggested as a possible cause.

This could all be just anecdotal, bits and pieces that
really
don't mean anything, possibly just a sign of the times,
things
change. However, this thinking did prompt my question to
you,
and I would suggest that it is worth considering, at least
on
the back burner. Some of the same chemicals used in
agriculture, prone to resistance, and affecting various non-
target populations, are also used in paint for example.
Possibly, with resistant populations (ag operations chemical
usage), all that is needed for an IAQ problem is adequate
moisture in a home? The treated material may provide the
ideal
habitat?

Based on the above, it also would not surprise me to see
fusarium, pseudomonas, cyanobacteria, etc., in homes or
buildings in close proximity to affected agricultural land
and/or contaminated waterways. If I worked for an insurance
company, I would be hard pressed to write a policy covering
mold, algae, or other microbial problems, even when such
policies did exist, for structures in certain locations.

I am unaware of anyonein this area that has performed
testing
to determine if there is any relationship betweem the
proximity
of homes and buildings to lakes/ag land, and reportedor
identified IAQ problems. Has this been done in other areas
such as Texas, Missouri, California... ?

Your responses are again, most appreciated. I did visit your
site, read your papers, and note that the information was
informative and objective.

Frank Fuzzell

On 3/14/03, Caoimhín P. Connell wrote:
> Good morning, Mr. Fuzzell:
>
> During exposure assessments, the issue of culturing
specific
> genera is less important than the presence of the
> organism. This thread started with a question concerning a
> lecture I gave last week at an IAQ seminar in TX. During
> that seminar, one of the questions put to me was proffered
by
> Dr. Godish who asked me to explain my views on the
> differences between Anderson sampling and spore traps;
this
> speaks directly to your question as well.
>
> When we set out to culture general airborne genera, we
select
> the media and conditions that will be most favourable to
the
> greatest number of species. In doing so, we recognize from
> the beginning, that we will sacrifice accuracy and we will
> bias counting in favour of some genera over others. This
> necessary “evil” is due to two facts: 1) All bioaerosol
> samplers are by their very nature size selective (theses
have
> been written on the particle physics of the cascade
> impactor). Since spores are of different sizes depending
on
> their genus, they will be biased high or low for any given
> method. 2) There is no media and growth condition that is
> equally favourable to all genera. As such, some organisms
> will be apparently missing when some methods are used, and
> apparently present in abundance when using other methods.
> This is one of the problems when comparing data from
> different sources, especially when the full methodology
has
> not been provided by the reporting authors. Culturability
is
> not the same thing as viability. Although all culturables
> were obviously viable, not all viables are equally
> culturable.
>
> Finally, the world distribution of genera is remarkable
> similar across the globe with regard to genus profiles. I
> just read a study from South Vietnam or South Taiwan
wherein
> the profiles reported by the authors (which to memory
> included the Fusaria) were remarkably similar to those
> we would find in downtown Boston Mass or Bozeman Montana.
> Cladosporia,Aspergilli and Penicillia
> lead the list in prominence. The Fusaria certainly
> enjoy global distribution.
>
> I would be keen to see any data that you may have on the
> prevalence or changes in prevalence of any genus for any
> locality. Please feel free to pursue this idea further.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Caoimhín P. Connell
>
> (The opinions expressed here are exclusively my
> personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect my
> professional opinion, opinion of my employer, peers, or
> professional affiliates. The above post is for information
> only and does not reflect professional advice and is not
> intended to supercede the professional advice of others.)
> AMDG
>

>
>

More | Report Post

More | Report Post Mr. Connell: Data on changes in genera prevalence for different locales? There should be plenty, at least regarding some microbial poulations. Lakes in central Florida have changed, there has been a shift in algal populations to dominance by cyanobacteria (90ptpt now), well documented by various entities including UF, FDEP, and the state's Harmful Algal Bloom Task Force. These are the Lake Apoka and Lake Harris chains which include Lake Griffin. Apopka and Griffin, are two of Florida's most contaminated lakes. The promoted or generally accepted explanation is nutrient based: Phosphorous contamination in the water resulting from years of farming operations adjacent to these lakes, and direct discharges into the lakes. However, it seems unlikely that nutrients alone would account for the drastic shift in cyanobacteria, rather, P is simply a food source. This is a major problem in this area and over $200,000,000.00 has been spent on restoration efforts designed to remove phosphorous from the water (marsh flow ways), so this has not been taken lightly. It also seems unlikey algae would be the only population tHAT changed. During the same time period that the first blooms were occured, a new strain of fusarium oxysporum began affecting agricultural crops in Florida. FDACS, referencing the systemic fusarium infections in plants, referred to this as a oxxorelatively newly encountered pathogenoxxo in Florida. Similarly, UF researchers noted cyanobacteria in greenhouse operations, as new during this same time period. Research also indicates a correlation, such that pseudomonas aeruginosa occurs with greater frequency in alligator clutch eggs along these contaminated lakes with adjacent farms, than in lakes which are not near agricultural lands. Additionally, shifts in microbial populations (DRB including pseudomonas a.) have been reported in agricultural land, with chemical application suggested as a possible cause. This could all be just anecdotal, bits and pieces that really don't mean anything, possibly just a sign of the times, things change. However, this thinking did prompt my question to you, and I would suggest that it is worth considering, at least on the back burner. Some of the same chemicals used in agriculture, prone to resistance, and affecting various non- target populations, are also used in paint for example. Possibly, with resistant populations (ag operations chemical usage), all that is needed for an IAQ problem is adequate moisture in a home? The treated material may provide the ideal habitat? Based on the above, it also would not surprise me to see fusarium, pseudomonas, cyanobacteria, etc., in homes or buildings in close proximity to affected agricultural land and/or contaminated waterways. If I worked for an insurance company, I would be hard pressed to write a policy covering mold, algae, or other microbial problems, even when such policies did exist, for structures in certain locations. I am unaware of anyonein this area that has performed testing to determine if there is any relationship betweem the proximity of homes and buildings to lakes/ag land, and reportedor identified IAQ problems. Has this been done in other areas such as Texas, Missouri, California... ? Your responses are again, most appreciated. I did visit your site, read your papers, and note that the information was informative and objective. Frank Fuzzell On 3/14/03, Caoimhín P. Connell wrote: rbrb Good morning, Mr. Fuzzell: rbrb rbrb During exposure assessments, the issue of culturing specific rbrb genera is less important than the presence of the rbrb organism. This thread started with a question concerning a rbrb lecture I gave last week at an IAQ seminar in TX. During rbrb that seminar, one of the questions put to me was proffered by rbrb Dr. Godish who asked me to explain my views on the rbrb differences between Anderson sampling and spore traps; this rbrb speaks directly to your question as well. rbrb rbrb When we set out to culture general airborne genera, we select rbrb the media and conditions that will be most favourable to the rbrb greatest number of species. In doing so, we recognize from rbrb the beginning, that we will sacrifice accuracy and we will rbrb bias counting in favour of some genera over others. This rbrb necessary “evil” is due to two facts: 1) All bioaerosol rbrb samplers are by their very nature size selective (theses have rbrb been written on the particle physics of the cascade rbrb impactor). Since spores are of different sizes depending on rbrb their genus, they will be biased high or low for any given rbrb method. 2) There is no media and growth condition that is rbrb equally favourable to all genera. As such, some organisms rbrb will be apparently missing when some methods are used, and rbrb apparently present in abundance when using other methods. rbrb This is one of the problems when comparing data from rbrb different sources, especially when the full methodology has rbrb not been provided by the reporting authors. Culturability is rbrb not the same thing as viability. Although all culturables rbrb were obviously viable, not all viables are equally rbrb culturable. rbrb rbrb Finally, the world distribution of genera is remarkable rbrb similar across the globe with regard to genus profiles. I rbrb just read a study from South Vietnam or South Taiwan wherein rbrb the profiles reported by the authors (which to memory rbrb included the Fusaria) were remarkably similar to those rbrb we would find in downtown Boston Mass or Bozeman Montana. rbrb Cladosporia,Aspergilli and Penicillia rbrb lead the list in prominence. The Fusaria certainly rbrb enjoy global distribution. rbrb rbrb I would be keen to see any data that you may have on the rbrb prevalence or changes in prevalence of any genus for any rbrb locality. Please feel free to pursue this idea further. rbrb rbrb Cheers, rbrb rbrb Caoimhín P. Connell rbrb rbrb (The opinions expressed here are exclusively my rbrb personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect my rbrb professional opinion, opinion of my employer, peers, or rbrb professional affiliates. The above post is for information rbrb only and does not reflect professional advice and is not rbrb intended to supercede the professional advice of others.) rbrb AMDG rbrb rbrb rbrb ">

MCS/MCSS Chatboard

LATEST POSTS | BY TOPICS | SUBMIT A POST